184 FRANCIS HEMMING 



jectively on taxonomic grounds as being congeneric with that represented by the nominal 

 species Apaustus Valerius Moschler, 1878, the type-species of the genus Morys Godman, 1900. 

 As the generic names Euroto and Morys were published on the same date and in the same 

 volume, the relative precedence to be accorded to them depends on the choice made by the 

 First Reviser. This appears to have been Evans (1955, Cat. amer. Hesp. Brit. Mus. 4 : 165- 

 166) who gave preference to the name Morys, sinking Euroto as a junior synonym. 



EURYADES Felder (C.) & Felder (R.), 1864, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 14 : 327, 376. Type- 

 species by selection by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 174) : Papilio 

 corethrus Boisduval, [1836], (Roret's Suite a Buffon), Hist. nat. Ins., Consid. gen., 1 (Lep.) : 

 314, pi. 17 [= pi. 1. C], fig. 2. 



There is a genus in Sponges which also bears the name Euryades and was published in the 

 same year as the butterfly genus here under consideration : this was Euryades Duchassaing 

 & Michelotti, 1864, [Natuurk. Verh. holland. Maatsch. Wet. Haarlem (2) 21, Artie. 3 : 106). 

 As these two names are homonyms of one another, it is necessary to determine which 

 should be given precedence over the other. So far as I am aware, this question has only 

 once been debated in the literature ; this was in a paper published in 1932 (Folia zool. 

 hydrobiol., Riga 4 (1) : 146), in which Strand stated that he had been unable to find out with 

 certainty which of these names was the first to be published. In the circumstances he 

 adopted the name for the butterfly genus. When I came to consider this matter, I consulted 

 Dr. A. Diakonoff of the Rijkmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, who thereupon con- 

 sulted the Hollandsche Maatschappij Wetenschappen. The Librarian of that Institution, 

 Miss E. Dorhout Mees very kindly undertook a detailed examination of the records which 

 included printers' bills, communications from the block-makers for the plates, etc. This 

 investigation showed that the bill for the printing of plate I was dated 26th September 1864 

 and that for plate 25 20th December 1864. Miss Mees points out that it must have been after 

 these dates that these plates were transmitted to the printers who were to make the issue 

 ready for publication; she concludes therefore at best the part concerned cannot have been 

 published before some date between Christmas 1864 and New Year's Day 1865. I am very 

 much obliged to Miss Mees for help in settling the present problem and I accept her findings, 

 subject only to the reservation that possibly publication did not take place until a few day's 

 after New Year's Day, 1865. The butterfly genus Euryades on the other is contained in a 

 paper presented to the Zool.-bot. Ges. on 1st June 1864 and there is no reason whatever to 

 suppose that the Felders' paper in itwas not published until the very end of the year in question. 

 In these circumstances, the generic name Euryades Felder & Felder can confidently be treated 

 as having been published before the name Euryades Duchassaing & Michelotti. 



EURYBIA [Illiger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg. Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180. Type-species by 

 monotypy : Limnas halimede Hiibner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pi. [27]. 



The present generic name was published in an anonymous paper of Illiger's, most of the new 

 generic names in which were long-overlooked senior homonyms of well-known names published 

 a little later in 1807 by Fabricius in Illiger's Magazin fur Insektenkunde. If these senior 

 homonyms had been brought into use, the Fabrician counterparts being sunk as junior homo- 

 nyms, very great confusion would have resulted. In order to prevent this from happening, 

 these senior homonyms were suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, its 

 ruling on this subject being promulgated in Opinion 232 published in 1954 [Opin. int. 

 Comm. zool. Nom. 4 : 249-274). In addition, there were three new names published in 

 this paper of Illiger's but no reference to Eurybia was included. 



The name Eurybia was used in the same or very similar senses by no less than four different 

 authors in the period 1809-1819 but none of these clearly indicated that they looked upon 

 himself as the author of this name; it seems likely that it was a manuscript name then in 

 circulation. It is virtually certain that it was Illiger himself who was the first to think of 

 employing the word " Eurybia " as a generic name. At the time of the discovery of Illiger's 

 paper of 1807, it was felt that there were not sufficient grounds for asking the Commission to 



